Supreme Court PIL Raises Concerns Over Transgender Law’s Impact on Biological Women, Seeks Safeguards
“Transgender persons should have equal rights and privileges…but the question is whether those rights can override protections given to biological women,” Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, appearing for petitioner Women’s Declaration International India (WDII) told the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
The Supreme Court asked the Central government to reply to a plea filed by a women’s organisation contending that the Transgender law in India could upset statutory protections and benefits exclusively granted to women. The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard the plea and issued notice.
The plea claims that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2026, recently amended, impacts reservations for women, prisons’ arrangements of accommodations based on gender, sporting events women participate in and protections given to women during FIR registrations and investigations.
The apex court had yesterday observed that there were already petitions pending before it which challenge the validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.
Those petitions contend that certain provisions of the law including its framework regarding recognition of transgender identity violate the rights of transgender persons.
“There is already a batch of petitions. So far is going to defeat your cause because then you are actually going to make Solicitor General keep answering the same questions over and over again. The batch which is listed today…is almost ready for hearing,” Justice Bagchi told WDII’s counsel yesterday.
Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, appearing for WDII today submitted that the plea recently filed is the only petition filed by a women’s body and the concerns raised in it are unique
.
“Our only concern is women’s constitutional and statutory benefits which are exclusively for the biological female gender. Those benefits should not be interfered with in any manner. We are not saying transgender persons should not have equal rights and privileges. But…whether those rights would override benefits that are given exclusively to biological female gender,” Sibal told the Court.
Sibal went on to state that no one was opposing someone’s right to say they are transgender. He added that questions such as whether transgender persons should get separate quotas in panchayats or avail of women’s quota were not raised in the earlier petitions.
CJI Kant replied: “Yes, she may have a point.” “We already have challenge to vires of certain provisions of the Act. So when this additional pleading is being filed, it will just add an angle to the arguments,” he noted.
“You are showing light from the other end of the tunnel,” the CJI said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the Centre’s response in the connected matters was already being drafted and he would incorporate answers to the concerns raised in WDII’s plea as well.
Mehta also assured the Court that he would consider the aspects raised by WDII specifically regarding competing for places in women’s sporting events, prison accommodations based on gender and access to women’s toilets.
“When a woman cannot be arrested after sunset, suppose an accused of rape says ‘I have been identifying myself as woman from childhood’, how will the police react to it,” he said.
The matter will be heard together with the pending petitions challenging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.
